These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lili Lu
#2581 - 2012-09-22 15:14:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Kaikka Carel wrote:
All right how about skills and rigs affecting close range missiles' explosion radius now?

An HML Tengu clears C3 sites way much faster than the HAM Tengu with 100 more DPS and it is not about the range. It is about the applied damage.

Yes, good to bring up wormholes, C3 sites, and the whole pve advantages Tengus have over other Tech III ships except for incursions and Legions. Further reason for the HM changes. And/or changes to wormhole sleeper AI and ewar, etc. It was almost like wormhole pve was created specifically for Drakes and Tengus.
Doddy
Excidium.
#2582 - 2012-09-22 15:27:09 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Kaikka Carel wrote:
All right how about skills and rigs affecting close range missiles' explosion radius now?

An HML Tengu clears C3 sites way much faster than the HAM Tengu with 100 more DPS and it is not about the range. It is about the applied damage.

Yes, good to bring up wormholes, C3 sites, and the whole pve advantages Tengus have over other Tech III ships except for incursions and Legions. Further reason for the HM changes. And/or changes to wormhole sleeper AI and ewar, etc. It was almost like wormhole pve was created specifically for Drakes and Tengus.


I think they actually said at the time that t3s would be good in wormholes, think they just forgot after they did the tengu. Really alot of the hate for hmls comes from 1 tengu sub that combines a bit too easily with 2 other tengu subs. To my mind this is why they want the range nerf on hmls which is a bit harsh on ships not bonused for range.
Riku Klayton
Ember Inc.
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#2583 - 2012-09-22 15:33:31 UTC
TDs WIN!
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#2584 - 2012-09-22 15:44:02 UTC
ISD TYPE40 wrote:
I have had to clean some posts out of this thread, including trolling and personal attacks.

This is an official warning, do NOT make personal attacks on members of CCP staff, it will not be tolerated in any way. If you have questions or comments to make on this subject then post them in a polite and decent fashion. Breaching this rule will result in warnings and/or a ban for anyone involved.

These forums are for everyone to use, a valuable part of the EVE community and a place where all of us, including staff, should be able to come without having to worry about having childish personal insults slung at them. In future, please post sensibly, or do not post at all - ISD Type40.


I agree, posting about flawed patch designs and horrible mechanics really attacks the devs... Keep up the good censorship mate.
Lili Lu
#2585 - 2012-09-22 15:45:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Doddy wrote:
I think they actually said at the time that t3s would be good in wormholes, think they just forgot after they did the tengu. Really alot of the hate for hmls comes from 1 tengu sub that combines a bit too easily with 2 other tengu subs. To my mind this is why they want the range nerf on hmls which is a bit harsh on ships not bonused for range.

Certainly tech III rebalancing when they get there will have to selectively look at subsytems. Some of which should actually get buffs and not nerfs. However, the range nerf on HMs had to come if a tech I launcher could get an effective range of 70-80km while the competitor tech II guns and tech II ammo were either stuck at 54-63km or had to fit multiple mods to even get a 70km optimal and for quite a bit less damage as well. But the numbers on that have already been posted multiple times itt, both in the op and followup posts and player posts. Thought we were beyond that discusion.Ugh
Rita May
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2586 - 2012-09-22 16:01:07 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:

On your first point-

Trajectory Analysis is indeed a gunnery skill. However, so is Weapons Upgrades (needed for TE). Now one could argue that WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it). Which would make TEs whether split missile and gun modules or remaining a unified module an easy and backstory consistent module to train for. Trajectory Analysis would probably have to stay in the Gunnery skill group.

This might be a good reason for there to be a separate modules for missiles akin to TC II, that could build off of Target Navigation Prediction 4 (which to my mind is the rough analogue of Trajectory Anaysis) and/or Guided Missile Precision. The trouble with keying any new mTC solely on TNP skill is that it is only a 2x skill while for turret users TA skill is a 5x skill. This would create yet another slight sp advantage for missile use (a la missile skill type ease v gunnery tree sp slogs). I suppose one could key the mod off of GMP 4 but then it would seem odd to have the then also boost "unguided" missiles. One could maybe do some hybrid skill requirement between the two missile skills that would roughly equate to having to train TA4, say like (without running the numbers and only for example purposes) TNP3 and GMP2 as a requirement for a mTC.

This of course brings up the sp investment disparity between TCs and TEs whether for missiles or gunnery and the advantage it could present due to racail slot and fitting propensities. But then there are always choices to be made. You fit a TE or mTE you lose a slot for a damage mod (or a tank mod on an armor tank), you fit a TC or mTC you lose a tackle slot (or a tanking slot on a shield tank). My guess is that shield tankers (being used to their drake tank risk aversion) will sacrifice a low slot damage mod before they sacrifice a mid tanking slot. That the damage nerf on HM is as proposed it may be some inducement to rethink it. It would be a no brainer to use a mTE over a mTC if there was no damage nerf on HM as so many are complaining about. And when talking about Drakes one cannot ignore the tanking advantage they have over other BCs.

That is why i didn't mention WU and AWU, those already affect all modules and have no bonus affecting guns only, it doesn't bother me that they are in the "gunnery" group as long as they affect all moduls and i don't need to train a similar skill for missles too.
TA doesn't work this way as even if it would affect all moduls it has no inherent bonus for missles but does have one for guns, therefor not needed on missle toons, that is why i'm asking if there will be an adjustment made.
I would be totally fine if for example GMP is removed and TA covers that bonus for missles, or if we get a mixed skill prerequesit like you mentioned.

Lili Lu wrote:

On your second point -

I'm not sure to what you are referring when you say that CCP balancing is favoring a rof bonus over a damage bonus. Some examples might be needed to discuss that.

Edit - and thanks Rita. This is the kind of discusion that should be occuring itt, by page 128, and not the hyperbolic sky is falling that OT Smithers is still posting.

uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect.
so the question if this is intended income nerv or ISK sink, if even a small one, still stands.

cu
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2587 - 2012-09-22 16:07:54 UTC
Rita May wrote:
uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect.


5% ROF per level is better than 5% dmg per level.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#2588 - 2012-09-22 16:22:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Deerin
I'll stop trolling the thread, stop enjoying the tears and give a serious feedback.

I don't know if any one has done this graph before, but here it is:

all medium size long range weapons with best ammo selected for specified range and 3 damage mods, assuming a big-non-moving target

http://i.imgur.com/xAlKi.jpg

The graph has all the weapons in their non bonused state. Note that I assumed fury missiles are getting a slight buff (5%)

First of all: Do not be fooled by the appearent low performance of 720's on this graph. Minmatar ships usually come with 2 damage bonuses instead of 1 for other races, albeit for less turrets. All in all assume its performance as 15% higher puts it actually in line with other turrets.

Second: The current state of HML's actually outrageous. First 10-15km of this graph is actually not as good as it looks for the turrets....as they'll have big problems tracking stuff below 10k. HML's will keep functioning at that region without any problems.
10-20k is the only niche where long range medium guns perform slightly better than HML's. Though that range is actually dominated by short range guns in todays pvp. Post 25k it is HML's have a crazy superiority.

Third: With the new changes the HML's are still dominant beyond 25k, but not as much as today. Additionaly you get the chance to increase your range and your exp velocity throughuse of TC's TE's....but you sacrifice your immunity to TD's for that.

The nerf is crazy.....yes.....but the real crazy thing was how good the heavy missiles were up until now. It is no coincidence that they are the most used weapons system in the game. They were too good. This patch fixes it.

Oh and fozzie....if any amarrian loyalist comes and says a 10% optimal bonus on HBL's would just put it in line with other medium long rane turrets......punch him/her repeatedly in the face.....as I hate amarrians most when they make sense.+

http://i.imgur.com/9tBED.png
*720's normalized by +15%, HBL optimal increasd by 10%

Edit: How do I put images in my post? [img] didn't work
Doddy
Excidium.
#2589 - 2012-09-22 16:24:11 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Rita May wrote:
uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect.


5% ROF per level is better than 5% dmg per level.


This, the overall small increase in isk/hr from bounties due to better bonus and better damage types would most likely cancel out the cost of more ammo used.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#2590 - 2012-09-22 16:29:50 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
ISD TYPE40 wrote:
I have had to clean some posts out of this thread, including trolling and personal attacks.

This is an official warning, do NOT make personal attacks on members of CCP staff, it will not be tolerated in any way. If you have questions or comments to make on this subject then post them in a polite and decent fashion. Breaching this rule will result in warnings and/or a ban for anyone involved.

These forums are for everyone to use, a valuable part of the EVE community and a place where all of us, including staff, should be able to come without having to worry about having childish personal insults slung at them. In future, please post sensibly, or do not post at all - ISD Type40.


I agree, posting about flawed patch designs and horrible mechanics really attacks the devs... Keep up the good censorship mate.


You just can't be a **** about it.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Lili Lu
#2591 - 2012-09-22 16:31:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Deerin wrote:
some good points and examples . . . Edit: How do I put images in my post? [img] didn't work

I beleive you just copy past the web address into the text. It will hypertext it on it's own when you click the post button. Smile

Deerin wrote:
Oh and fozzie....if any amarrian loyalist comes and says a 10% optimal bonus on HBL's would just put it in line with other medium long rane turrets......punch him/her repeatedly in the face.....as I hate amarrians most when they make sense.+

Even a blind faith spewing religious zealot can occasionally resort to logic and science to make a valid argument. P
Javius Rong
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#2592 - 2012-09-22 16:40:35 UTC

This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2593 - 2012-09-22 16:51:10 UTC
Javius Rong wrote:

This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.




Well, Add ECM :)

But for DPS ships, and i am not saying they have great DPS, they are sending Caldari into the stone age.
Lili Lu
#2594 - 2012-09-22 16:51:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Javius Rong wrote:

This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.

Not agreeing with your initial assessment, but . . Alternately you could be solely focused on Gallente, and have what BC or BS for fleets?

Also, have you not been following the other threads in this subforum and noticing the frigate and cruiser rebalancing. BCs and BSs are going to be addressed once those are done. Prior to the OP announcement most of the complaint over the step by step approach was coming from those of us identifying the Drake as the biggest balancing problem. Welcome to the club of wishing they could move faster on all the rebalancing now.

Long and short of it is every pilot should have two races of ships it can fly. It insulates you from real or perceived over-nerf. It gives you options when your FC calls for different fleet comps. And it gives you experience with more than one weapon or tanking or ewar system, which gives you a better perspective on the game as a whole, which makes you a better poster on the forums.Smile
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#2595 - 2012-09-22 17:11:31 UTC
Lev Arturis wrote:
Ocih wrote:
Sleipnir 300 mill
Damnation 180 mill
Nighthawk 220 mill
Eos 225 mill

T2 Nova on that Damnation with no damage mods (tank and e-war) has 118.2 dps in the launchers. It only has 62.5 km target ability so it won't make any difference to me if you nerf range but you really need to nerf the damage? If you force the Drakes to match optimals with their opposition you won't need to nerf damage on heavy missile.



Why are comparing Field and Fleet Command ships? (you know apples & oranges...).

Also a Damnation has a bonus to HAM and not to HM Roll


Damnation has a HAM and HM bonus, the same as the Drake, the same as the Nighthawk. Those ships have a medium missile platform as their primary weapons platform. Nerfing the platform is a nerf to those ships as well as the drake, as well as the Tengu.

Ignore that though and go back to your tunnel vision perspective. It won't matter, they will nerf them anyway.
Romvex
TURN LEFT
#2596 - 2012-09-22 17:25:25 UTC
oooohh that TD buff. if god flew a ship it would be a pilgrim
Doddy
Excidium.
#2597 - 2012-09-22 17:27:12 UTC
Skydell wrote:
Lev Arturis wrote:
Ocih wrote:
Sleipnir 300 mill
Damnation 180 mill
Nighthawk 220 mill
Eos 225 mill

T2 Nova on that Damnation with no damage mods (tank and e-war) has 118.2 dps in the launchers. It only has 62.5 km target ability so it won't make any difference to me if you nerf range but you really need to nerf the damage? If you force the Drakes to match optimals with their opposition you won't need to nerf damage on heavy missile.



Why are comparing Field and Fleet Command ships? (you know apples & oranges...).

Also a Damnation has a bonus to HAM and not to HM Roll


Damnation has a HAM and HM bonus, the same as the Drake, the same as the Nighthawk. Those ships have a medium missile platform as their primary weapons platform. Nerfing the platform is a nerf to those ships as well as the drake, as well as the Tengu.

Ignore that though and go back to your tunnel vision perspective. It won't matter, they will nerf them anyway.


No, the nighthawk has 2 hml only blonuses, its getting way more of a hard time. Damnation is a fleet command ship, it isn't supposed to do damage anyway or they would have given it a damage bonus tbh (not that it would do any harm). Still all the t2 ships are still to be balanced anyway, its a moot point.
TradingTooth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2598 - 2012-09-22 17:28:14 UTC  |  Edited by: TradingTooth
Javius Rong wrote:

This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.



Actually... The Naga is a bit too good when compared to the Talos, probably not too good for it's own good when compared to other t3 bcs, but it feels wrong to have a sniping boat with the damage bonus of a blaster platform. All-round, caldari gun platforms are probably the best gun platforms in game atm


also: PLEASE PLEASE CCP DON'T LET THE ROOK BECOME A COLLATERAL VICTIM OF THIS NERF


The poor ship suffered enough through the years, it needs to keep the missile range and the tanking ability


SAVE THE ROOK
Doddy
Excidium.
#2599 - 2012-09-22 17:36:10 UTC
Javius Rong wrote:

This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.



Basi, rokh, scorp, falcon, rook, naga. Thats more worthwhile fleet ships than gallente have (arazu, lachesis, oneiros, proteus) and as many as amarr (zealot, abaddon, guardian, geddon, curse, oracle). So even assuming the change broke drake (it won't) and tengu (it def wont) even ignoring the fact they are still to rebalance bcs, bs and all t2/t3 ships you are only really worse off than winmatar (lol all of them).
Doddy
Excidium.
#2600 - 2012-09-22 17:38:50 UTC
Seriously will there be a bad minmatar ship once the bellicose gets buffed? Hyena?